Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 697

The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants

Open access
Brendon M. H. Larson, Spencer C. H. Barrett·2000·Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Abstract

We conducted a comparative analysis to determine life history and ecological correlates of pollen limitation among 224 species of animal-pollinated flowering plants. To test predictions concerning the occurrence of pollen limitation, species were classified categorically for six life-history traits (self-compatible vs. self-incompatible, autogamous vs. non-autogamous, specialized vs. unspecialized floral morphology, nectariferous vs. nectarless, monocarpic vs. polycarpic, herbaceous vs. woody) and two ecological conditions (presence in open vs. forested habitats and temperate vs. tropical biomes). Pollen limitation of species in contrasting categories was compared using non-parametric tests (TIPs analysis) and phylogenetically-independent contrasts (PICs). The results of TIPs and PICs analyses were generally congruent, although fewer significant contrasts were evident with PICs, probably because of low statistical power. Overall the results suggest that the influence of phylogenetic history on the intensity of pollen limitation was not particularly strong. Nonetheless, significant variation in the degree of pollen limitation was demonstrated among seven angiosperm families suggesting some phylogenetic component to the phenomenon. With both TIPs and PICs, pollen limitation was less intense in self-compatible and autogamous species. TIPs analysis demonstrated that herbaceous, nectariferous, and temperate species were less likely to be pollen-limited, but using PICs this could only be corroborated for those that were self-incompatible. None of the traits were singularly unambiguous predictors of pollen limitation, possibly reflecting the stochastic nature of pollinator service.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.1006/bijl.1999.0372

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

See all 697

Metadata

Authors
Larson, B. M. H., & Barrett, S. C. H.
Venue
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Published
2000-04-01
Volume
69
Issue
4
Pages
503-520
ISSN
0024-4066 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1998392773
Cited by
697
References
53
FWCI
19.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1006/bijl.1999.0372
The paper
Larson, B. M. H., & Barrett, S. C. H. (2000). A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. https://doi.org/10.1006/bijl.1999.0372

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.